Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
176 lines (135 loc) · 16.5 KB

sec-design-deep-analysis.md

File metadata and controls

176 lines (135 loc) · 16.5 KB

Okay, let's perform a deep security analysis of the GoFrame (gf) framework based on the provided design review.

1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

The objective of this deep analysis is to conduct a thorough security assessment of the GoFrame framework's key components, identify potential vulnerabilities, and provide actionable mitigation strategies. The analysis will focus on how the framework's design and implementation choices impact the security of applications built upon it. We aim to identify weaknesses that could lead to common web application vulnerabilities, such as injection attacks, cross-site scripting, broken authentication, and others.

Scope:

The scope of this analysis includes the following key components of the GoFrame framework, as identified in the design review and C4 diagrams:

  • ghttp (Web Server): Request handling, routing, middleware, session management, and security headers.
  • gdb (ORM): Database interactions, SQL query construction, and data access.
  • gview (Templating Engine): Rendering of dynamic content and output encoding.
  • gvalid (Input Validation): Validation of user-supplied data.
  • gcfg (Configuration Management): Handling of application configuration, including sensitive data.
  • glog (Logging): Logging of application events and potential security-relevant information.
  • gerror (Error Handling): Error handling and reporting.
  • Controllers, Services, and Models: The application's business logic and data access layers, as implemented using GoFrame's components.
  • Dependency Management: The framework's handling of external dependencies.

Methodology:

  1. Architecture and Data Flow Review: Analyze the provided C4 diagrams and documentation to understand the framework's architecture, data flow, and interactions between components.
  2. Code Review (Inferred): Since we don't have direct access to the full codebase, we will infer potential security implications based on the documentation, common Go programming patterns, and known vulnerabilities in similar frameworks. This is a crucial distinction – we're making educated guesses based on available information.
  3. Threat Modeling: Identify potential threats and attack vectors targeting each component, considering the "Accepted Risks" and "Security Requirements" outlined in the design review.
  4. Vulnerability Analysis: Assess the likelihood and impact of identified threats, considering existing security controls.
  5. Mitigation Recommendations: Propose specific, actionable mitigation strategies tailored to the GoFrame framework and its components.

2. Security Implications of Key Components

Let's break down the security implications of each key component:

  • ghttp (Web Server):

    • Threats:

      • HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP): If ghttp doesn't handle duplicate query parameters or form fields correctly, attackers might bypass validation or manipulate application logic.
      • Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF): Without built-in CSRF protection or clear guidance, applications are vulnerable to CSRF attacks.
      • Session Management Vulnerabilities: Weak session ID generation, insecure session storage, or lack of proper session expiration could lead to session hijacking.
      • HTTP Header Injection: If ghttp doesn't sanitize user-controlled input used in HTTP headers, attackers could inject malicious headers (e.g., for response splitting attacks).
      • Slow HTTP Attacks (DoS): Vulnerability to slowloris, slow body, or slow headers attacks if not properly configured.
      • Lack of HSTS/CSP: If not enforced by default or easily configurable, applications might be vulnerable to MITM attacks and XSS.
      • Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards: If the framework allows user input to control redirect destinations without proper validation, attackers could redirect users to malicious sites.
      • File Upload Vulnerabilities: If file uploads are not handled securely (e.g., checking file types, limiting file sizes, storing uploads outside the web root), attackers could upload malicious files.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • CSRF Protection: Implement a robust CSRF protection mechanism, preferably using synchronized token patterns. Provide clear documentation and examples for developers.
      • Session Management: Use a cryptographically secure random number generator for session IDs. Store session data securely (e.g., in a database or encrypted cookie). Implement proper session expiration and timeouts. Consider using the SameSite cookie attribute.
      • HTTP Header Security: Encourage (or enforce) the use of security headers like HSTS, CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy. Provide helper functions or middleware to simplify their implementation.
      • Rate Limiting: Implement rate limiting middleware to mitigate brute-force attacks and DoS attacks. Allow configuration of rate limits based on IP address, user ID, or other criteria.
      • Input Validation (for Headers): Validate all user-supplied input used in HTTP headers.
      • File Upload Security: Implement strict file upload validation, including file type whitelisting, file size limits, and secure storage of uploaded files. Scan uploaded files for malware.
      • Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards: Validate redirect URLs against a whitelist of allowed destinations.
      • Slow HTTP Attack Mitigation: Configure timeouts appropriately for connections, reads, and writes.

  • gdb (ORM):

    • Threats:

      • SQL Injection: Even with parameterized queries, subtle vulnerabilities might exist if dynamic query construction is used improperly (e.g., concatenating user input with table names or column names).
      • Data Exposure: Incorrectly configured database permissions or access controls could expose sensitive data.
      • Second-Order SQL Injection: If data retrieved from the database is later used in another query without proper sanitization, it could lead to second-order SQL injection.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Parameterized Queries (Enforcement): Strictly enforce the use of parameterized queries or prepared statements for all database interactions. Make it difficult or impossible for developers to construct queries using string concatenation with user input.
      • Least Privilege (Database): Ensure that database users have only the minimum necessary privileges. Avoid using highly privileged database accounts for application connections.
      • Input Validation (ORM Layer): Even with parameterized queries, validate data types and formats before passing them to the ORM. This provides an additional layer of defense.
      • Query Auditing: Log all database queries (with sensitive data redacted) for auditing and security monitoring.
      • Avoid Dynamic Table/Column Names: Discourage or prevent the use of user-supplied input to dynamically construct table or column names. If absolutely necessary, use a strict whitelist.

  • gview (Templating Engine):

    • Threats:

      • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): If the templating engine doesn't automatically encode output or provides unsafe functions, attackers could inject malicious JavaScript code.
      • Template Injection: If user input is used to dynamically select templates or template fragments, attackers might be able to inject malicious code into the template itself.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Automatic Contextual Output Encoding: Implement automatic contextual output encoding to prevent XSS. This means that the templating engine should automatically encode data based on where it's being inserted (e.g., HTML attributes, JavaScript, CSS).
      • Safe Functions: Provide a set of "safe" functions that are guaranteed to be XSS-safe. Clearly document any functions that might be unsafe.
      • Template Sandboxing: Consider using a template sandboxing mechanism to limit the capabilities of templates and prevent them from accessing sensitive data or executing arbitrary code.
      • Template Path Validation: If user input is used to select templates, validate the template path against a whitelist.

  • gvalid (Input Validation):

    • Threats:

      • Bypass Vulnerabilities: If the validation rules are not comprehensive or are implemented incorrectly, attackers might be able to bypass them.
      • Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS): Poorly crafted regular expressions used in validation rules could be vulnerable to ReDoS attacks.
      • Inconsistent Validation: If validation is performed differently in different parts of the application, it could lead to inconsistencies and vulnerabilities.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Comprehensive Validation Rules: Provide a wide range of validation rules to cover common data types and formats. Allow developers to easily define custom validation rules.
      • Regular Expression Security: Carefully review all regular expressions used in validation rules to ensure they are not vulnerable to ReDoS. Use tools to test regular expressions for performance and security.
      • Centralized Validation: Encourage developers to use gvalid consistently throughout the application. Avoid duplicating validation logic.
      • Server-Side Validation (Always): Emphasize that client-side validation is only for user experience and that server-side validation is essential for security.
      • Fail Closed: The validation should default to rejecting input unless it explicitly matches a defined rule (whitelist approach).

  • gcfg (Configuration Management):

    • Threats:

      • Sensitive Data Exposure: If sensitive configuration data (e.g., database credentials, API keys) is stored insecurely (e.g., in plain text files, in version control), it could be exposed.
      • Configuration Injection: If attackers can modify the configuration files, they could inject malicious settings.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Secrets Management: Integrate with a secure secrets management solution (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault, Google Cloud Secret Manager). Provide clear guidance on how to use these solutions with GoFrame.
      • Environment Variables: Encourage the use of environment variables for storing sensitive configuration data.
      • Configuration File Permissions: Ensure that configuration files have appropriate permissions to prevent unauthorized access.
      • Configuration Validation: Validate configuration values to ensure they are within expected ranges and formats.

  • glog (Logging):

    • Threats:

      • Sensitive Data Leakage: If sensitive data (e.g., passwords, session tokens, PII) is logged, it could be exposed.
      • Log Injection: If user input is logged without proper sanitization, attackers could inject malicious data into the logs (e.g., to forge log entries or disrupt log analysis).

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Data Masking/Redaction: Implement mechanisms to mask or redact sensitive data in log messages. Provide helper functions or configuration options to make this easy.
      • Log Sanitization: Sanitize user input before logging it to prevent log injection.
      • Secure Log Storage: Store logs securely and protect them from unauthorized access.
      • Log Rotation: Implement log rotation to prevent log files from growing too large.

  • gerror (Error Handling):

    • Threats:

      • Information Leakage: If error messages reveal sensitive information about the application's internal workings (e.g., stack traces, database queries, file paths), it could be used by attackers.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Generic Error Messages: Return generic error messages to users. Avoid revealing sensitive information.
      • Detailed Logging: Log detailed error information (including stack traces) for debugging purposes, but never expose this information to users.
      • Error Codes: Use error codes to categorize errors and provide more specific information to developers without exposing sensitive details to users.

  • Controllers, Services, and Models:

    • Threats: This layer is where most application-specific vulnerabilities will reside, as it implements the core business logic. Threats include all of the above, plus:

      • Broken Authentication/Authorization: Incorrect implementation of authentication or authorization logic.
      • Business Logic Flaws: Vulnerabilities arising from flaws in the application's business logic.
      • Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR): If users can access objects they shouldn't be able to access by manipulating identifiers.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Secure Coding Practices: Provide comprehensive secure coding guidelines and best practices for developers.
      • Code Review: Require code reviews for all changes, with a focus on security.
      • Authentication/Authorization Framework: Provide a robust authentication and authorization framework or integrate with existing solutions (e.g., OAuth2, JWT).
      • Input Validation (Again): Validate all user input at this layer, even if it has already been validated elsewhere.
      • Output Encoding (Again): Encode all output to prevent XSS.
      • IDOR Prevention: Use indirect object references or access control checks to prevent IDOR vulnerabilities.

  • Dependency Management:

    • Threats:

      • Supply Chain Attacks: Vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies could be exploited to compromise the application.

    • Mitigation Strategies:

      • Dependency Scanning: Use tools like go mod tidy, go mod vendor, and dependency vulnerability scanners (e.g., Snyk, Dependabot) to identify and address vulnerable dependencies.
      • SBOM: Generate and maintain a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) to track all dependencies.
      • Pin Dependencies: Consider pinning dependencies to specific versions to prevent unexpected updates that might introduce vulnerabilities.
      • Regular Updates: Regularly update dependencies to patch known vulnerabilities.

3. Actionable Mitigation Strategies (Summary)

Here's a consolidated list of actionable mitigation strategies, prioritized by importance:

  1. Enforce Parameterized Queries (gdb): Make it impossible to construct SQL queries using string concatenation with user input.
  2. Automatic Contextual Output Encoding (gview): Implement automatic output encoding to prevent XSS.
  3. Robust CSRF Protection (ghttp): Provide a built-in CSRF protection mechanism.
  4. Secure Session Management (ghttp): Use secure session IDs, secure storage, and proper expiration.
  5. Comprehensive Input Validation (gvalid, Controllers, Services, Models): Validate all user input at multiple layers.
  6. Secrets Management Integration (gcfg): Integrate with a secure secrets management solution.
  7. Dependency Scanning and Management: Regularly scan and update dependencies.
  8. Secure Coding Guidelines: Provide comprehensive secure coding guidelines for developers.
  9. Security Audits and Penetration Testing: Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing.
  10. HTTP Security Headers (ghttp): Enforce or encourage the use of security headers (HSTS, CSP, etc.).
  11. Rate Limiting (ghttp): Implement rate limiting to mitigate brute-force and DoS attacks.
  12. Generic Error Messages (gerror): Avoid revealing sensitive information in error messages.
  13. Data Masking/Redaction in Logs (glog): Prevent sensitive data leakage in logs.
  14. Authentication/Authorization Framework: Provide or integrate with a robust authentication/authorization framework.

This deep analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the security considerations for the GoFrame framework. By implementing these mitigation strategies, the GoFrame development team can significantly improve the security posture of the framework and the applications built upon it. Remember that security is an ongoing process, and continuous monitoring, testing, and improvement are essential.